Nick Anderson for January 29, 2014

Climate change is like a coin toss. One side is global warming, the other side is weather extremes. So it’s heads you lose or tails you lose. Two out of three anyone?

Strangely enough, once summer gets here and the weather turns hot the pro-climate change folks will cite it as proof of global warming.

Since my computer model that accounts for Somali pirate activity shows a steady increase in incidents that accounts for the increasing temperature of the planet….That stupidity cuts both ways..It is interesting to note that it is primarily government funded research and agencies who are committed to Gorebal Warming while many independent and non-governmental ones say Climate Change is not anthropomorphic but rather just the normal variation over geologic time.

excuse me aiurophile, but it IS Science that affirms no global warming as portrayed by “librul”

The “science” has been repeatedly called into question and those who adhered to the scientific method would readily agree that the theory is on very shaky ground. Where’s the “hockey stick” for example? James Hansen, NASA scientist and proponent of the theory has been quoted recently admitting that the last 16 years of data do not fit any of the models. The theory relies on too many statistically improbably events to have any credence until more data supports it. However, the likelihood that all the events required for global warming to actually occur will actually happen is extremely low. Like picking a perfect NCAA bracket the first two rounds are relatively easy.Anderson is a hack who should be illustrating children’s books.

the Bible says the earth is a circle hung on nothing..check it out

“Is that, is that Russia?”

By your reasoning half the shows on PBS must be evil since the Koch Foundation funds them too….That aside, do feel free to show some evidence of that.

So are you saying that scientists are bought? I thought that was blasphemy!

The endless series of ‘toons on climate change can sometimes be funny. The discussion from the “denier” segment in comments is often funnier, because they do require some “upgrading” of their science and technology expertise: like how a light switch functions, and that electrons flow through wires isn’t “black magic” in offense to religious doctrine.

If you right-click on the picture and select properties, it says photobucket.

Oh, that’s cute… you cited his source, not necessarily any scientific proof. But then science can be used to explain any number of things given the perspective of those doing the reporting to focus on their agendas. People will take that perspective to say “I told you so” ignoring anything that doesn’t fit their preferred views or dogmatic provincialism.

Then they are likely wrong as they have been with their climate predictions 97% of the time in the last roughly 30+ years….

…and all the people are white everyone has a job and all the churches have crosses on them. This is called the “Republican Syndrome”. It is very serious if not treated and can cause serious harm to the economy and the environment if not treated.

I’m worn out. I keep asking for those who don’t believe in climate change to post links to reputable research (I will accept good popularizations if they are properly referenced) and I have never received a credible response. You’d think if they believe their position so firmly they could point to evidence. But evidently not. So I’m taking a little vacation from this topic.

The only thing I ponder whenever anyone mentions the fact that there is a 97 [98.4]% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research and taking a position, is….who the hell are those 1.6 to 3% taking no position or contrary position?

“…’Link gives a “404 error message – site not found” …”

I simple copy/paste error in the html but the full address was still visible; I’ve helpfully provided Baslim’s link for you.

There are three kinds of people who believe in global warming: 1) those who have developed schemes to make a killing off of it, 2) those who are paid to claim to believe in it, and 3) those who are too gullible to see through the scam, and swallow what they are told. Which category does Nick fall into?